starcraftfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:Marine
Once again, not my call, but I think it's best that we keep the former image. --Hawki 12:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Maybe the best idea is to insert a screenshot of marine from original StarCraft. --Rethas 19:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Don't Forget the Counters Section Don't forget to put the counters and weakness section of every unit. IG use alot of Mutalisks to counter a Marine rush. Assaulthead 9-24-07 The list... The list of known Marines is extremely long. Should we cut down on that somehow? Kimera 757 (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Given that the list will only increase with time, it seems best to make a seperate article, if one at all. The issue exists of an individual being in a Corps, but not being a marine unit (eg. Cutter could be called a marine, even if he was a specialist firebat). The classification of a marine in regards to listing them in it's unit article is a bit ambiguous.--Hawki 03:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Gameplay/Lore split I'm all for the gameplay/lore split, and like the new page. I appreciate all the lore work that's been done, but I have to ask. Why is gameplay a disambiguation and lore the main page? Give that Starcraft is first and foremost a game, one of the most successful in history, and the lore is rare and not widely appreciated, it seems like the wiki would be better served with gameplay first, lore as the subpage. Klomer 04:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Firstly, please sign your posts. Secondly, I can appreciate your concerns-we had similar ones with the dark templar. However, for what it's worth, I think the lore page should be the main one, if only for page links. Marines did that, marines did that, x was a marine, y was a marine, the C-14 is used by marines, etc. In essence, far more pages, in context, lead to the marine lore rather than the unit-at best, you'd get the game templates and gameplay articles, which are comparatively few to in-context articles. It would be a logistical nightmare to redirect all those links. This is my opinion and it's open to discussion. However, the admins have the final say.--Hawki 04:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Hawki has read my mind. The relinking aspect was very much on my mind when I made the choice. I also like the idea that when the user enters "marine" they get a content page and not a disambiguation page. However, PSH may have insight into the matter to justify it going the other way. Meco 04:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC) To be clear, the justification here is that outside pages link to marine and are referring to lore elements, and would need to be redirected to the lore page to make sense. Whereas, since the wiki contains fewer gameplay references, it would be easier to point them to gameplay? Klomer 04:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC) That's the idea. Internally there seem to be more links to lore than links to gameplay. If there are other Wikia wikis linking to us, they're probably more concerned with lore than gameplay (for example, when we link to WoWWiki concerning units and characters it's basically all lore.) Beyond Wikia, well, that's hard to say. I suspect most of those are casual full-URL links that people make in, say, forum postings: made today in one post, forgotten tomorrow, and remade next week in another post when the need arises again. That sort of linking won't be affected much by the new scheme. The person making the link will browse through to the right wiki page before making the link, sop anybody clicking the link will go directly to the right page. Meco 04:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC) OK, that makes sense. I'm less concerned with linking then I am with wiki navigation and easy-of-authoring. Now, if someone comes to the page and types in Marine, they'll get the lore with just the link to the gameplay, and get the impression (somewhat rightly, but we're working on that) that the focus is on lore and this isn't the place to come for the actual game. Also, those of us trying to write the gameplay articles (which seem to have a lot more writing to do) will have to try and keep track this new obfuscating link format, which will cut down on the quality and make it harder to encourage gameplay authors. We're already obfuscated by the Starcraft 1/Starcraft 2 split, it's going to get very hard to link around here. I'm not sure how to make this easier, but maybe there's awesome middle ground here. Klomer 05:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Link removal Psi, why did you remove the most of the links from the strategy section? Klomer 03:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC) That was not PSH, that was Mechanical-Menace. Ask him on his user page if need be. If his actions were unjustified (which it appears they are) feel free to undo his edit in the page history. It appears, however, that many pf your links were to pages that either have not yet been written or were deleted. I'm sure PSH has some better insight into how the article should be handled/organized. --Thebrowncloud 04:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC) THe links are back. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC) UED Marines Nickname I know that UED Marines are called "smiths" due to their powered armor suits, but is there any information as to why they acquired the nickname- lore-wise and/or game-wise? Did some game/story designer say, "They look like blacksmiths in this armor," and thus a similar quote was "said" by an in-universe designer of the armor, or something like that? That information might be useful for their history- if it's out there. Alockwood1 (talk) 00:49, September 10, 2012 (UTC) :We don't know. The source is extremely limited, and Blizzard virtually never talks about the UED. Unless a Brood War novel comes out, we won't learn more. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 01:46, September 10, 2012 (UTC) Add Umojan Protectorate Marines into the list of Marine branches Excuse me, but is it fine to add Umojan Protectorate in the list of Marine branches? After all it has its own Marines and has armor similar to the CMC armor. --Warmachine375 (talk) 02:31, May 7, 2014 (UTC) :Yes.--Hawki (talk) 03:40, May 7, 2014 (UTC)